Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

MATTHEW K. HAGENBUSH GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

JUSTIN F. ROEBEL

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JOSHUA BATCHELOR, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 15A01-1402-CR-83 

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Special Judge

Cause No. 15D01-0205-FB-011 

September 15, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Chief Judge
2

Case Summary

Joshua Batchelor appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. Because Batchelor alleges sentencing errors that require consideration of matters 

beyond the face of the sentencing judgment, a motion to correct erroneous sentence was 

not the appropriate vehicle for him to use. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court 

properly denied Batchelor’s motion.

Facts and Procedural History

In September 2002, in Dearborn County, Indiana, Batchelor pled guilty pursuant to 

a plea agreement to two counts of burglary as Class B felonies and one count of burglary 

as a Class C felony. Appellant’s App. p. 51-56. In the plea agreement, the State 

recommended the following sentence to the trial court: 

[T]hat the Defendant receive as to Count I a sentence of eight (8) years of 

which zero (0) years shall be suspended; as to Count XII a sentence of twenty 

(20) years of which ten (10) years shall be suspended; and as to Count XVII 

a sentence of twenty (20) years of which ten (10) years shall be suspended. 

These sentences are to run concurrent.

Id. at 52. The trial court imposed the sentence recommended by the State. Id. at 58-60. 

Additionally, the trial court ordered that the Dearborn County sentence be served 

consecutive to his sentence in Ripley County, since the Dearborn County felonies were 

committed when Batchelor was out on bond in Ripley County. See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-

2. Since then, Batchelor has filed numerous motions and notices of appeal. 
3

In January 2014 Batchelor filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence,

1

arguing 

that the consecutive sentences were “not a stipulation that was agreed upon by him and that 

this condition went beyond the parameters of the plea agreement.” Appellant’s App. p. 

121. The trial court denied Batchelor’s motion. 

Batchelor now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

Batchelor contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct 

erroneous sentence. An inmate who believes he has been erroneously sentenced may file 

a motion to correct the sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15: 

If the convicted person is erroneously sentenced, the mistake does not render 

the sentence void. The sentence shall be corrected after written notice is

given to the convicted person. The convicted person and his counsel must 

be present when the corrected sentence is ordered. A motion to correct 

sentence must be in writing and supported by a memorandum of law 

specifically pointing out the defect in the original sentence. 

Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15; see also Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (Ind. 2008). The 

purpose of this statute “is to provide prompt, direct access to an uncomplicated legal 

process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence.” Robinson v. State, 805 

N.E.2d 783, 785 (Ind. 2004). A motion to correct sentence may only be used to correct 

sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light 

of the statutory authority. Id. at 787. Claims that require consideration of the proceedings 

before, during, or after trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct sentence. 

Id. When claims of sentencing errors require consideration of matters outside the face of 

 

1 Several days after filing his motion to correct erroneous sentence, Batchelor filed an amended 

motion to correct erroneous sentence, which does not differ significantly from the initial motion. Batchelor 

is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. 
4

the sentencing judgment, they are best addressed promptly on direct appeal and thereafter 

via post-conviction proceedings where applicable. Id. 

Batchelor does not allege that his sentence is facially erroneous. Instead, he argues 

that his sentence is erroneous because it was not stipulated in the plea agreement that his 

Dearborn County and Ripley County sentences would run consecutively; therefore, he 

contends, his plea was not “knowing and voluntary.” Appellant’s Br. p. 3. This argument, 

however, clearly falls outside the parameters of Section 35-38-1-15. Resolution of this 

issue requires us to look beyond the face of the judgment and the applicable statutory 

authority. See, e.g., Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 786-87. Indeed, Batchelor relies heavily on 

the sentencing transcript in support of his argument. See Appellant’s Br. p. 4-5. Because 

the motion to correct erroneous sentence was not the appropriate means of challenging his 

sentence, the trial court properly denied Batchelor’s motion. 

Affirmed. 

FRIEDLANDER, J., and MAY, J., concur.